Wednesday, April 3, 2013

The Private Life of the Duck, Exposed

I'm not sure I have all that much to say in terms of context and commentary (except that basic research really is important, and even the most apparently absurd has its uses -- if only to enable us to wonder at the glories and oddities of the universe ), but I'm hoping the powers that be (aka the RGM) will forgive me, since the article excerpted below is about ducks, penises, and conservative attacks on NSF-funded research. If that doesn't belong on CM, what does?

Why I Study Duck Genitalia

Fox News and other conservative sites miss the point of basic science.

In the past few days, the Internet has been filled with commentary on whether the National Science Foundation should have paid for my study on duck genitalia,and 88.7 percent of respondents to a Fox news online poll agreed that studying duck genitalia is wasteful government spending. The commentary supporting and decrying the study continues to grow. As the lead investigator in this research, I would like to weigh in on the controversy and offer some insights into the process of research funding by the NSF. . . .

Male ducks force copulations on females, and males and females are engaged in a genital arms race with surprising consequences. Male ducks have elaborate corkscrew-shaped penises, the length of which correlates with the degree of forced copulation males impose on female ducks. Females are often unable to escape male coercion, but they have evolved vaginal morphology that makes it difficult for males to inseminate females close to the sites of fertilization and sperm storage. Males have counterclockwise spiraling penises, while females have clockwise spiraling vaginas and blind pockets that prevent full eversion of the male penis. . . .

Generating new knowledge of what factors affect genital morphology in ducks, one of the few vertebrate species other than humans that form pair bonds and exhibit violent sexual coercion, may have significant applied uses in the future, but we must conduct the basic research first. In the meantime, while we engage in productive and respectful discussion of how we envision the future of our nation, why not marvel at how evolution has resulted in such counterintuitive morphology and bizarre animal behavior.

[honestly, I'm not entirely sure she nails the argument, but there's got to be some fodder for discussion, or t least amusement, somewhere in there.]

7 comments:

My only quibble with the article is the statement that NSF funding rates have recently dropped below 10%. That's a bit of an overstatement. They have declined to 10 - 20%. Some programs, perhaps her's, might be 8 - 10%.

Although I am generally conservative, I don't put up with this stupid shit that right wingers say about science funding. I cringe when I read stories like this. Even the basic science is relevant and interesting. The review panels, which I've participated in, are a hell of a lot of work for not much money.

We are all intrinsically better off now that we know ducks have screwy penises and vaginas. That's money well spent.

If you do not expect the unexpected, you will not find it.For it is not easy to find by search or by trail.

–Heraclitus

The missed point, in general, has something to do with unintended consequences. I am not a science person, but scientific investigation need not have a clear and immediate payoff to end up being extremely useful. Who can judge now what will be important later?

Oh, duck penises and vaginas are important. We need to be sure the duck can be reproduced, right?

What Was This?

College Misery was a dysfunctional group blog where professors got the chance to release some of the frustration that built up while tending to student snowflakes, helicopter parents, money mad Deans, envious colleagues, and churlish chairpeople.

Our parent site, Rate Your Students, started in 2005, and we continued that mission beginning in 2010. Ben at Academic Water Torture and Kimmie at The Apoplectic Mizery Maker both ran support blogs during periods when this blog had died.